Over in Social there is a thread Canadian Gov’t Dissolves Thousands of Same-Sex Marriages  that reveals once again the deplorable state of the Fourth Estate otherwise known as the public press, journalism or media.  Whatever the euphemism or media, the state of reporting the news seems to be sinking faster than icebergs in a climatically changing world.

For a long time I thought this sinking was intentional.  I blamed media barons like Murdoch and Black for destroying the reputation of good, albeit booze sotted, jurnos but I read an article that may prove me wrong ... apparently it could be the journalists themselves....

The New York Times public editor's very public utterance
Clay Shirky
guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 January 2012 

Thursday, Arthur Brisbane, the public editor of the New York Times, went to his readers with a question:

"I'm looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about."

Brisbane (who, as public editor, speaks only for himself, not the Times) referred to two recent stories: the claim that Clarence Thomas had "misunderstood" a financial reporting form when he left out key information, and Mitt Romney's assertion that President Obama gives speeches "apologising" for America. Brisbane asked whether news reporters should have the freedom to investigate and respond to those comments.

The reaction from readers was swift, voluminous, negative and incredulous.

"Is this a joke? THIS IS YOUR JOB."

"If the purpose of the NYT is to be an inoffensive container for ad copy, then by all means continue to do nothing more than paraphrase those press releases."

"I hope you can help me, Mr Brisbane, because I'm an editor, currently unemployed: is fecklessness now a job requirement?"

Brisbane had clearly not been expecting this excoriating and one-sided a reaction. Brisbane has since tried to clarify his views twice. The first was on the media blog JimRomenesko.com:

"What I was trying to ask was whether reporters should always rebut dubious facts in the body of the stories they are writing. I was hoping for diverse and even nuanced responses to what I think is a difficult question."

The second was on the NY Times site:

"My inquiry related to whether the Times, in the text of news columns, should more aggressively rebut 'facts' that are offered by newsmakers when those 'facts' are in question. I consider this a difficult question, not an obvious one."

This only added fuel to the fire.

Now, it's worth noting that Brisbane's question makes perfect sense, considered from the newsroom's perspective. Romney's claim that Obama makes speeches "apologising" for America isn't readily amenable to fact-checking. Instead, Romney relied on what are sometimes called "weasel words", in which an allegation is alluded to, without being made head-on. (Romney, for instance, never quotes any of the president's speeches when making this assertion.) For Brisbane, the open question was whether a hard news reporter should be calling out those kinds of statements, or should simply quote the source accurately.

This is what was so extraordinary about his original question: he is evidently so steeped in newsroom culture that he does not understand – literally, does not understand, as we know from his subsequent clarifications – that this is not a hard question at all, considered from the readers' perspective. Readers do not care about the epistemological differences between lies and weasel words; we want newspapers to limit the ability of politicians to make dubious assertions without penalty. Judging from the reactions to his post, most of us never understood that this wasn't the newspapers' self-conceived mission in the first place.

[click title link above for rest of Guardian article]

*********************************************

So there you have it.  News-hounds are no longer hunters of facts.  They have evolved into caged parrots merely repeating anything said regardless of whether their name is Polly or they want a cracker.  And we, the poor reader, consumer of the news produced, must find our way through the droppings on the cage floor.

Editors Note:  In fairness to Mr. Brisbane links to his articles have been included above so other readers can decide if I am being too harsh.

News is something someone wants suppressed. Everything else is just advertising.
       Alfred Harmsworth (1865–1922), Newspaper Baron